andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2013 andrew_gelman_stats-2013-1841 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: From an email I received the other day: Things are going much better now — it’s interesting, it feels like with both of my models, parameters are slow to converge or get “stuck” and have trouble mixing when the model is somehow misspecified. See here for a statement of the folk theorem.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 From an email I received the other day: Things are going much better now — it’s interesting, it feels like with both of my models, parameters are slow to converge or get “stuck” and have trouble mixing when the model is somehow misspecified. [sent-1, score-2.78]
2 See here for a statement of the folk theorem. [sent-2, score-0.531]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('converge', 0.357), ('folk', 0.325), ('mixing', 0.318), ('slow', 0.28), ('theorem', 0.267), ('feels', 0.267), ('stuck', 0.255), ('somehow', 0.248), ('trouble', 0.224), ('statement', 0.206), ('received', 0.199), ('email', 0.194), ('parameters', 0.189), ('day', 0.155), ('interesting', 0.121), ('going', 0.12), ('models', 0.118), ('things', 0.105), ('better', 0.102), ('model', 0.093), ('much', 0.072), ('get', 0.066), ('see', 0.062), ('like', 0.051)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 1841 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-04-The Folk Theorem of Statistical Computing
Introduction: From an email I received the other day: Things are going much better now — it’s interesting, it feels like with both of my models, parameters are slow to converge or get “stuck” and have trouble mixing when the model is somehow misspecified. See here for a statement of the folk theorem.
2 0.16138528 1733 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-22-Krugman sets the bar too high
Introduction: If being cantankerous and potty-mouthed is a bad thing, I’m in big trouble !
Introduction: Psychologists talk about “folk psychology”: ideas that make sense to us about how people think and behave, even if these ideas are not accurate descriptions of reality. And physicists talk about “folk physics” (for example, the idea that a thrown ball falls in a straight line and then suddenly drops, rather than following an approximate parabola). There’s also “folk statistics.” Some of the ideas of folk statistics are so strong that even educated people–even well-known researchers–can make these mistakes. One of the ideas of folk statistics that bothers me a lot is what might be called the “either/or fallacy”: the idea that if there are two possible stories, the truth has to be one or the other. I have often encountered the either/or fallacy in Bayesian statistics, for example the vast literature on “model selection” or “variable selection” or “model averaging” in which it is assumed that one of some pre-specified discrete set of models is the truth, and that this true model
4 0.13507372 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
5 0.13051552 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
Introduction: A few days ago I reported on the spam email that I received from two business school professors (one at Columbia)! As noted on the blog, I sent an email directly to the study’s authors at the time of reading the email, but they have yet to respond. This surprises me a bit. Certainly if 6300 faculty each have time to respond to one email on this study, the two faculty have time to respond to 6300 email replies, no? I was actually polite enough to respond to both of their emails! If I do hear back, I’ll let youall know! P.S. Paul Basken interviewed me briefly for a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the now-notorious spam email study. Basken’s article is reasonable–he points out that (a) the study irritated a lot of people, but (b) is ultimately no big deal. One interesting thing about the article is that, although some people felt that the spam email study was ethical, nobody came forth with an argument that the study was actually worth doing. P.P.S. In
7 0.098409645 3 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-26-Bayes in the news…in a somewhat frustrating way
8 0.095124811 530 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-22-MS-Bayes?
9 0.090965852 1287 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-28-Understanding simulations in terms of predictive inference?
10 0.090300336 833 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Untunable Metropolis
11 0.089620732 1580 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-16-Stantastic!
13 0.089201815 1392 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-Occam
14 0.088192284 515 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-13-The Road to a B
15 0.086620092 18 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-$63,000 worth of abusive research . . . or just a really stupid waste of time?
16 0.086332612 773 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-18-Should we always be using the t and robit instead of the normal and logit?
17 0.084742934 1527 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-10-Another reason why you can get good inferences from a bad model
18 0.083776616 776 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-22-Deviance, DIC, AIC, cross-validation, etc
19 0.082397059 240 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-ARM solutions
20 0.081626132 1466 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-22-The scaled inverse Wishart prior distribution for a covariance matrix in a hierarchical model
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.101), (1, 0.042), (2, -0.02), (3, 0.053), (4, 0.02), (5, 0.017), (6, 0.064), (7, -0.04), (8, 0.04), (9, 0.016), (10, 0.028), (11, 0.016), (12, -0.012), (13, 0.007), (14, -0.051), (15, 0.01), (16, 0.042), (17, -0.023), (18, -0.014), (19, 0.011), (20, 0.023), (21, -0.056), (22, 0.008), (23, -0.068), (24, -0.02), (25, -0.02), (26, -0.006), (27, 0.03), (28, -0.013), (29, 0.032), (30, -0.073), (31, 0.013), (32, -0.049), (33, -0.002), (34, -0.023), (35, -0.048), (36, -0.001), (37, -0.008), (38, -0.024), (39, -0.004), (40, 0.036), (41, 0.036), (42, -0.007), (43, -0.041), (44, 0.059), (45, -0.061), (46, 0.028), (47, -0.052), (48, 0.061), (49, -0.074)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9597671 1841 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-04-The Folk Theorem of Statistical Computing
Introduction: From an email I received the other day: Things are going much better now — it’s interesting, it feels like with both of my models, parameters are slow to converge or get “stuck” and have trouble mixing when the model is somehow misspecified. See here for a statement of the folk theorem.
2 0.71395534 503 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Clarity on my email policy
Introduction: I never read email before 4. That doesn’t mean I never send email before 4.
3 0.656672 27 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-11-Update on the spam email study
Introduction: A few days ago I reported on the spam email that I received from two business school professors (one at Columbia)! As noted on the blog, I sent an email directly to the study’s authors at the time of reading the email, but they have yet to respond. This surprises me a bit. Certainly if 6300 faculty each have time to respond to one email on this study, the two faculty have time to respond to 6300 email replies, no? I was actually polite enough to respond to both of their emails! If I do hear back, I’ll let youall know! P.S. Paul Basken interviewed me briefly for a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the now-notorious spam email study. Basken’s article is reasonable–he points out that (a) the study irritated a lot of people, but (b) is ultimately no big deal. One interesting thing about the article is that, although some people felt that the spam email study was ethical, nobody came forth with an argument that the study was actually worth doing. P.P.S. In
4 0.64337063 259 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-06-Inbox zero. Really.
Introduction: Just in time for the new semester: This time I’m sticking with the plan : 1. Don’t open a message until I’m ready to deal with it. 2. Don’t store anything–anything–in the inbox. 3. Put to-do items in the (physical) bookje rather than the (computer) “desktop.” 4. Never read email before 4pm. (This is the one rule I have been following. 5. Only one email session per day. (I’ll have to see how this one works.)
Introduction: This is hilarious ( link from a completely deadpan Tyler Cowen). I’d call it “unintentionally hilarious” but I’m pretty sure that rms knew this was funny when he was writing it. It’s sort of like when you write a top 10 list—it’s hard to resist getting silly and going over the top. It’s only near the end that we get to the bit about the parrots. All joking aside, the most interesting part of the email was this: I [rms] have to spend 6 to 8 hours *every day* doing my usual work, which is responding to email about the GNU Project and the Free Software Movement. I’d wondered for awhile what is it that Richard Stallman actually does, that is how does he spend his time (aside from giving lectures to promote his ideas and pay the bills). Emailing –> Blogging I too spend a lot of time on email, but a few years ago I consciously tried to shift a bunch of my email exchanges to the blog. I found that I was sending out a lot of information to an audience of one, information
6 0.60466141 552 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-03-Model Makers’ Hippocratic Oath
7 0.60187805 1573 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-11-Incredibly strange spam
9 0.59785491 852 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-13-Checking your model using fake data
10 0.59700495 2079 andrew gelman stats-2013-10-27-Uncompressing the concept of compressed sensing
11 0.58529556 2195 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-02-Microfoundations of macroeconomics
12 0.58424634 1459 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-15-How I think about mixture models
13 0.57834202 815 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-22-Statistical inference based on the minimum description length principle
14 0.57692474 1200 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-06-Some economists are skeptical about microfoundations
15 0.57493949 1392 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-26-Occam
16 0.57371759 1422 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-20-Likelihood thresholds and decisions
17 0.56693 1287 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-28-Understanding simulations in terms of predictive inference?
18 0.56405365 964 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-19-An interweaving-transformation strategy for boosting MCMC efficiency
19 0.55611211 2018 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-12-Do you ever have that I-just-fit-a-model feeling?
20 0.55412346 819 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-24-Don’t idealize “risk aversion”
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.27), (15, 0.078), (24, 0.398), (84, 0.076)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.92409825 164 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-26-A very short story
Introduction: A few years ago we went to a nearby fried chicken place that the Village Voice had raved about. While we were waiting to place our order, someone from the local Chinese takeout place came in with a delivery, which the employees of the chicken place proceeded to eat. This should’ve been our signal to leave. Instead, we bought some chicken. It was terrible.
2 0.80742961 613 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-15-Gay-married state senator shot down gay marriage
Introduction: This is pretty amazing.
3 0.80742961 712 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-14-The joys of working in the public domain
Introduction: Stan will make a total lifetime profit of $0, so we can’t be sued !
4 0.80742961 723 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-21-Literary blurb translation guide
Introduction: “Just like literature, only smaller.”
5 0.80742961 1242 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Best lottery story ever
Introduction: Kansas Man Does Not Win Lottery, Is Struck By Lightning . Finally, a story that gets the probabilities right.
6 0.80742961 1252 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-08-Jagdish Bhagwati’s definition of feminist sincerity
7 0.80560136 59 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-30-Extended Binary Format Support for Mac OS X
8 0.78674179 2024 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-15-Swiss Jonah Lehrer update
9 0.78625441 471 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-17-Attractive models (and data) wanted for statistical art show.
10 0.7812559 1437 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-31-Paying survey respondents
11 0.77473319 1046 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-07-Neutral noninformative and informative conjugate beta and gamma prior distributions
12 0.75432396 240 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-29-ARM solutions
13 0.74492466 545 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-30-New innovations in spam
14 0.73460031 224 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-22-Mister P gets married
15 0.73064268 643 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-02-So-called Bayesian hypothesis testing is just as bad as regular hypothesis testing
16 0.72946393 373 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-27-It’s better than being forwarded the latest works of you-know-who
17 0.72146767 1063 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-16-Suspicious histogram bars
18 0.7151053 19 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-06-OK, so this is how I ended up working with three different guys named Matt
19 0.70512462 38 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-18-Breastfeeding, infant hyperbilirubinemia, statistical graphics, and modern medicine
20 0.70014143 2229 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-28-God-leaf-tree